On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 11:09 PM, Martin Heidegger wrote:
> I think I am talking about this:
> http://gingerbinger.com/2010/07/actionscript-3-0-events-the-myth-of-useweakreference/
Nice read, thanks.
> Would you be interested in a working group: "Remove the weak"?
Sure, potentially. I certainly
I think I am talking about this:
http://gingerbinger.com/2010/07/actionscript-3-0-events-the-myth-of-useweakreference/
Of course the mentioned example of me is irrelevant but that doesn't
make the current use of
weak references in the system less problematic.
Would you be interested in a worki
On 2/7/12 11:33 AM, "Martin Heidegger" wrote:
> This means to me: Any use of
> weak Dictionaries and weak event listeners would need to vanish from the
> Flex SDK to actually make it portable.
>
> I just wanted to point that out. It might be interesting to a few.
>
> And related to that two
> Ah, I guess I should go to bed, gn8
You were right up to Flash Player 8 ;)
http://www.adobe.com/devnet/flashplayer/articles/garbage_collection.html
(that's when FP switched from ref counting to mark-and-sweep, which
avoids problems with circular references)
Still, weak references are certainl
On 08/02/2012 05:36, Maciek Sakrejda wrote:
How so?...
My very tired brain pictures a implementation like:
class EventDispatcher {
private var _listeners: Object = {};
public function addEventListener(event: String, listener: Function) {
if((_listeners[event] ||= []).indexOf(listener)
> Yeah, its funny how such a language construct actually is implemented in
> Firefox without the world knowing. Chrome/Opera and IE have nothing alike.
> However: It will not become standard before the release of IE10 and
> therefore will take - estimate at least more 5 years
> until it can be safe
Personally, that's a long time I think that destructors would be beneficial :p
Frédéric THOMAS
> Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 05:29:31 +0900
> From: m...@leichtgewicht.at
> To: flex-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: JavaScript VS. Weak references
>
> On 08/02/2012 05:21
On 08/02/2012 05:21, Frédéric THOMAS wrote:
In the section "Circular references collection" it's explained that the
reference is cleaned up when the outer element dies but may be is not what you looked for
?
Frédéric THOMAS
Ah! Now I understand the meaning. Its quite late here, should be in
b
On 08/02/2012 05:14, Maciek Sakrejda wrote:
Weak references are on the horizon for JS:
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=harmony:weak_maps#weakmap
Yeah, its funny how such a language construct actually is implemented in
Firefox without the world knowing. Chrome/Opera and IE have nothing ali
dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: JavaScript VS. Weak references
>
> The content of the link says nothing about "addEventlistener".
>
> yours
> Martin.
>
> On 08/02/2012 05:03, Frédéric THOMAS wrote:
> > I guess you will have element of response here
>
Weak references are on the horizon for JS:
http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=harmony:weak_maps#weakmap
> And related to that two questions:
> 1) Does anyone know how browsers avoid memory leaks with addEventListener ?
Not all listeners have to be weak references. If what you're listening
to
The content of the link says nothing about "addEventlistener".
yours
Martin.
On 08/02/2012 05:03, Frédéric THOMAS wrote:
I guess you will have element of response here
http://javascript.info/tutorial/memory-leaks
Frédéric THOMAS
Hello List,
when I recently thought about a way to get AS3 code to JavaScript I got
into a major concept problem related to Weak references. As maybe most
of you know weak references are not supported by JavaScript. However:
The current code using addEventListener() relies heavily on weak
ref
13 matches
Mail list logo
